Hi,
[Travis wrote...]
> My strong suggestion is that development discussions of the project continue on
> this list with consensus among the active participants being the goal for
> development. I don't think 100% consensus is a rigid requirement --- but
> certainly a super-majority should be the goal, and serious changes should not be
> made with out a clear consensus. I would pay special attention to
> under-represented people (users with intense usage of NumPy but small voices on
> this list). There are many of them. If you push me for specifics then at
> this point in NumPy's history, I would say that if Chuck, Nathaniel, and Ralf
> agree on a course of action, it will likely be a good thing for the project. I
> suspect that even if only 2 of the 3 agree at one time it might still be a good
> thing (but I would expect more detail and discussion). There are others whose
> opinion should be sought as well: Ondrej Certik, Perry Greenfield, Robert Kern,
> David Cournapeau, Francesc Alted, and Mark Wiebe to name a few. For some
> questions, I might even seek input from people like Konrad Hinsen and Paul
> Dubois --- if they have time to give it. I will still be willing to offer my
> view from time to time and if I am asked.
Thank you for starting this discussion.
I am more or less offline at the moment in Cuba and flying, but I hope
very much this will be an opportunity for a good discussion on the
best way forward for numpy.
Travis - I think you are suggesting that there should be no one
person in charge of numpy, and I think this is very unlikely to work
well. Perhaps there are good examples of well-led projects where
there is not a clear leader, but I can't think of any myself at the
moment. My worry would be that, without a clear leader, it will be
unclear how decisions are made, and that will make it very hard to
take strategic decisions.
I would like to humbly suggest the following in the hope that it spurs
discussion.
As first pass, Ralf, Chuck and Nathaniel decide on a core group of
people that will form the succession committee. Maybe this could be
the list of people you listed above.
Ralf, Chuck and Nathaniel then ask for people to wish to propose
themselves as the leader of numpy. Anyone proposing themselves to
lead numpy would remove themselves from the succession committee.
The proposed leaders of numpy write a short manifesto saying why they
are the right choice for the job, and what they intend to do if
elected. The manifestos and issues arising are discussed in public on
the mailing list - the equivalent of an online presidential debate.
In due course - say after 2 weeks or after the discussion seems to be
dying out - the succession committee votes on the leader. I propose
that these votes should be public, but I can see the opposite
argument.
How does that sound?
Best,
Matthew